This process of differentiation is still underway, and it might take a few more generations to fully settle.

Men’s and women’s incentives are necessarily adversarial, and always will be. Their incentives partially align when they come together to have children, but the alignment is never total.

Assuming one could really and durably repeal the 19th, I think it’s safe to assume it would take at least 100 more years for the damage to be undone.

Women’s suffrage is an important part of the puzzle and it may have been the catalyst, but now women occupy many powerful positions at every level of both the public and private sector. Even if you wanted to clear them out, you just couldn’t. Not quickly, not easily.

Many people see this and they conclude the only thing to do is capitulate. “I guess we just have to compromise with women” — that’s what they think.

But there is no compromise, and there cannot be, because there’s really no one to compromise with.

There’s no individual or organization with whom you could broker such an agreement, and there’s no middle ground, and even if there were, women have little regard for rules and promises.

You can’t give women what they want, you can only give a particular woman what she wants, at most. Her own desires, like yours, are an irrational, ephemeral bundle of contradictions.

In any social situation, you can count on each woman to try to sabotage all other women, but in any political situation, you can count on each woman to side with all women against all men.

Unfortunately, you can count on quite a few men to side with all women against all men. Men are a little more individuated than women, they have just slightly less of a collective instinct.

A pretty robust finding in social science is that both men and women like women more than men.

This bias is so powerful that, even though society is already extremely tilted in favor of women, most men and women believe that society is tilted in favor of men.

No amount of evidence or explication will ever convince them otherwise, because it’s not a rational belief, it’s an emotional and instinctive one.

When you cut away the emotion and focus on the question from a game theoretic, evolutionary standpoint, women’s liberation simply means that women should no longer cooperate with men in the iterated prisoner’s dilemma of life.

They should pursue their own incentives even if the result is a material and psychological loss (and it is— women’s liberation has made us poorer and it has made women unhappy. Even feminist scientists come to this conclusion.)

Modern people feel there is a moral imperative for women to defect against men, that this constitutes some kind of higher spiritual goal which is more important than material or psychological well-being.

We can easily write off their motivations as being incoherent, self-serving, grounded in baser instincts toward intrasexual competition, etc… As opposed to other types of human motivations, of course.

The only thing that makes it possible for men and women to cooperate in a normative way—that is to say, the only way for it to be the norm, rather than the exception— is for one sex to have a dependency on the other.

A successful social pattern that recurs for thousands or hundreds of thousands of years gets baked into the genes and the blood; like layers of sediment sinking and forming rocks, behaviors become hard-wired instincts.

For this reason, women are sexually repulsed by men who are dependent upon them, though they are not necessarily attracted to men who can provide for them.

As such, men and women can reliably cooperate only when women are dependent on men.

Women hate this truth, and they always will. They are existentially insecure, and they worry that their man will stop loving them, or that he will die, and then their dependency will become a potentially fatal liability.

I’m not indifferent to this, but it’s by far the lesser of two evils, when you compare it to an otherwise insurmountable barrier to intersexual cooperation.

But all this is a rational argument, which means it convinces precisely zero women. Where women are concerned, it really is true that their feelings don’t care about facts.

Nothing anyone says or does is going to put the cat back in the bag with regard to women’s liberation. We’re all stuck with each other, and if anyone does come up with a solution for the problem, it will at best benefit our grandchildren, and women are going to kick and scream and weep and wail every single painstaking step of the way.

It’s also important, to the degree it is possible, not to confuse this society-level problem with your own individual problem.

You can find a husband or a wife and be, if not happy exactly, (happiness is an active process, not a state of being) at least fruitful and multiplicative.

Solving the society-level coordination problem between men and women is literally 8 billion times harder than solving the coordination problem between yourself and one member of the opposite sex.

A lot of people, when they can’t solve the easy problem, decide that the solution to the easy problem is to solve the hard problem.

I’m pissing into the wind by saying this, but please try not to be one of those people.

Are we burned out on sexism yet? Can we go back to racism for a few weeks?

https://x.com/0x49fa98/status/1775923609757749586?s=46&t=lHi3fy4jwVfX8-181y6RRg

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5513549&forum_id=2#47555712)

-Redditor

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5513549&forum_id=2#47557844)

Turns out to be big mistake

Cannot undo it

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5513549&forum_id=2#47556120)

A more logical explanation is that women's instincts and attraction towards evil and selfishness were unleashed through the women's liberation movement, and everything we've seen in the breakdown of society has resulted from that. It also explains why it'll be impossible to go back without forcing women back (because even against their better interests, they'll never agree to it because their instincts are evil in themselves).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5513549&forum_id=2#47556203)

They could be dragged out by their ponytails, kicking and screaming, in less than a day if men so desired. This is a problem of collective action, not ability.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5513549&forum_id=2#47556236)

that contradicts your correct assertion that women try to undermine other women.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5513549&forum_id=2#47557822)

Did this guy really write like 5 pages of rambling "thoughts" on this subject without admitting this or pointing it out?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5513549&forum_id=2#47557823)

Everybody under 40 knows the real score now and will know the real score going forward. Betas understand that their interests and women's interests are in opposition to each other. And that it's in their interest to subjugate women

Women are like Jews. Their power in the west has already peaked and it's all downhill from here on out

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5513549&forum_id=2#47557833)

sounds like a culture that doesnt deserve to survive

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5513549&forum_id=2#47557825)